Information Note on the Court’s case-law 60

January 2004

Martinie v. France (dec.) - 58675/00

Decision 13.1.2004 [Section II]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Civil rights and obligations

Applicability of Article 6 to proceedings concerning the requirement that an accountant in the public sector reimburse certain sums: Article 6 applicable

The applicant was an accountant in a public institution. In the course of a judicial audit of the accounts submitted by the applicant, the regional audit board found that he owed the institution certain sums of money corresponding to unauthorised payments he had made in his capacity as a public-sector accountant. The Court of Audit ruled on an appeal by the applicant, who subsequently appealed on points of law to the Conseil d’Etat . The applicant was held personally and financially liable and was accordingly ordered to repay a sum of more than FRF 190,000 to the local authority.

Admissible under Article 6 § 1: The outcome of the proceedings had been decisive for the obligation on the applicant, as a public-sector accountant, to bear personally the financial consequences of irregularities in the management of accounts. That obligation had a “public” connotation in French law, as was evidenced, in particular, by the fact that disputes over such matters fell within the jurisdiction of specialist administrative courts, subject to final review by the Conseil d’Etat . The Court considered that the obligation had manifest pecuniary implications for the applicant, which in principle gave it a “civil” connotation. This pecuniary obligation did not belong exclusively to the realm of public law within the meaning of the Court’s case-law. Its main purpose was to make good the loss sustained by the local authority as a result of the accountant’s negligence in carrying out his supervisory duties. The applicant had therefore been in a financial dispute with the local authority and his position had been similar to that of a person who had committed a tort and was required to make good the damage he had caused. In the Court’s view, the private-law features of the case were therefore predominant, so that the obligation was a “civil” one. Accordingly, Article 6 was applicable.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes